Two news items catch my eye today. The first is that four man have been jailed for a stabbing in August 2012. The second is a stabbing which recently occurred in Hackney.
The two places are on the face of it very different. Worthing on the south coast is a traditional Conservative stronghold, whereas Hackney in Greater London is a traditional Labour stronghold.
In August 2012, a black man called Ernest Moyo was attacked by four men as he left a party in Worthing. Apparently the attack followed on from a row about a mobile phone. His injuries were so terrible that he subsequently had to have both of his arms and both of his legs amputated.
The four men who have been jailed for attacking him appear to be all either non-white or at least mixed race.
More recently, on 14 June 2014, a man entered the Bonneville public house in Hackney. He had been stabbed and was bleeding from his left arm. The staff wanted to call an ambulance for him, but he was aggressive towards them. Apparently he wanted to call his friends so that they could go out as a pack and attack whoever had stabbed him.
He subsequently refused to assist the police with their enquiries.
I am not aware of the ethnicity of either the stabbed man or his attackers, but I refer the reader to this record of murders in Greater London. Between 2006 and the present day, there have been fifty-four murders in Hackney. Check the names, and you will see that most of them are clearly of immigrant stock.
The site does not record the ethnicity of the murderers, but it is a fact that many murders in Britain today are committed by immigrants.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
The fruits of immigration
A question for Ajmol's father
Monday, 16 June 2014
Saturday, 14 June 2014
A dilemma for the war pigs
As I write, the British people have recently commemorated the seventieth anniversary of the Normandy landings. Later this year we are expected to commemorate the outbreak of the Great War. It appears that this will be a very emotional year for the lovers of war.
Also at this time the evil warmongering governments of the United Kingdom and the USA are facing a dilemma. In 2003 they went to war against Iraq. I expect some readers of this site would prefer me to say that they went to war in Iraq, but I reserve the right not to be brainwashed.
The war supposedly ended a long time ago, but the truth is that Iraq today is still very much a war zone. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was apparently codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom, and sure enough the people of Iraq are now free. They are free to flee in terror from Sunni militias. They are free to join the Shi'ite militias which aim to hold back the Sunni insurgency. They are free to get caught in the crossfire.
It seems however that there are no plans to send British or American troops back into Iraq in order to try and resolve what may well be an insoluble situation.
Update: it has since been reported that the USA is planning to send military personnel back to Iraq to defend its embassy. I regard that as a hostile invasion. Either the embassy should accept what security is afforded it by the Iraqi authorities, or else the embassy staff should be repatriated.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
The future of the Muslim world
Thursday, 12 June 2014
The hate speech of a private landlord
Just as one national newspaper reports that a woman left a rented house in a mess, so another newspaper reports that she did not.
If you do not have time to read these two press reports, the basic story is that a single mother on benefits called Christine Lucas used to live with her two (or three - it isn't clear) children in a house owned by private landlord Sean Feeney.
She vacated the property when she was offered a council house, where she now lives with her children and her mother. Mr Feeney alleges that she left the house she rented from him in a terrible state, while Miss Lucas alleges that she left the house spotless. Any damage was caused by vandals after she left.
I do not know whether or not Miss Lucas is telling the truth, but I wonder if Mr Feeney does either. Can he prove that people other than Miss Lucas did not trash the property?
Mr Feeney has been quoted as saying that they haven’t worked hard for anything in the house so they have no respect for it. How is this not hate speech?
If Mr Feeney were to talk about black people the way he talks about benefit claimants, then he would probably be arrested.
Does he honestly think it is polite to imply that people who have to depend upon welfare payments are by nature morally deficient?
Also, Miss Lucas argues that Mr Feeney did not maintain the property. Is that true?
It appears that Miss Lucas fell behind with the rent, and that she borrowed money to pay the arrears, but it was stolen. Maybe the lender could have given her the money in the form of a cheque made payable to her landlord. Surely that would have been safer.
Mr Feeney may well have a point when he complains about the government paying housing benefit to tenants rather than landlords, but that state of affairs is the fault of the government, not the tenants. In fact it is the fault of the millions of people in this country who insist on voting in elections for worthless politicians.
Related previous posts include:
What exactly is hate speech?
This hate speech shames Britain
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
A large family versus private landlords
If you do not have time to read these two press reports, the basic story is that a single mother on benefits called Christine Lucas used to live with her two (or three - it isn't clear) children in a house owned by private landlord Sean Feeney.
She vacated the property when she was offered a council house, where she now lives with her children and her mother. Mr Feeney alleges that she left the house she rented from him in a terrible state, while Miss Lucas alleges that she left the house spotless. Any damage was caused by vandals after she left.
I do not know whether or not Miss Lucas is telling the truth, but I wonder if Mr Feeney does either. Can he prove that people other than Miss Lucas did not trash the property?
Mr Feeney has been quoted as saying that they haven’t worked hard for anything in the house so they have no respect for it. How is this not hate speech?
If Mr Feeney were to talk about black people the way he talks about benefit claimants, then he would probably be arrested.
Does he honestly think it is polite to imply that people who have to depend upon welfare payments are by nature morally deficient?
Also, Miss Lucas argues that Mr Feeney did not maintain the property. Is that true?
It appears that Miss Lucas fell behind with the rent, and that she borrowed money to pay the arrears, but it was stolen. Maybe the lender could have given her the money in the form of a cheque made payable to her landlord. Surely that would have been safer.
Mr Feeney may well have a point when he complains about the government paying housing benefit to tenants rather than landlords, but that state of affairs is the fault of the government, not the tenants. In fact it is the fault of the millions of people in this country who insist on voting in elections for worthless politicians.
Related previous posts include:
What exactly is hate speech?
This hate speech shames Britain
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
A large family versus private landlords
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
As the war criminal said to the actress ...
It is reported in the press today that cabinet minister William Hague has appeared in public alongside actress Angelina Jolie to discuss the issue of rape in combat zones.
Angelina Jolie should realise that the best way to tackle rape in war zones is for the war zones not to exist in the first place.
William Hague is a warmonger. He is a senior figure in a government which sends British troops into illegal wars. In a just society he would be tried for his crimes and hanged.
This is also the same William Hague who when he was leader of the Conservative Party said that he hoped that Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister would be a Conservative.
Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister will be an adherent of a belief system which permits rape within marriage (The Koran 2:223) and which permits a Muslim man to rape any woman whom his right arm possesses (23:1-6).
But will Britain ever actually have a Muslim Prime Minister? If the British people continue to vote for political parties (such as the Conservative Party) which support open door immigration, then the answer would appear to be yes.
Angelina Jolie should realise that the best way to tackle rape in war zones is for the war zones not to exist in the first place.
William Hague is a warmonger. He is a senior figure in a government which sends British troops into illegal wars. In a just society he would be tried for his crimes and hanged.
This is also the same William Hague who when he was leader of the Conservative Party said that he hoped that Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister would be a Conservative.
Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister will be an adherent of a belief system which permits rape within marriage (The Koran 2:223) and which permits a Muslim man to rape any woman whom his right arm possesses (23:1-6).
But will Britain ever actually have a Muslim Prime Minister? If the British people continue to vote for political parties (such as the Conservative Party) which support open door immigration, then the answer would appear to be yes.
Saturday, 7 June 2014
Does teacher training improve schools?
What follows is a comment posted on the website of a national newspaper.
I went to a grammar school in Birmingham in the 1960s. None of my teachers went to teachers training college. They either came from University with a first class degree in the subject they taught or they were ex officers from the armed forces who knew how to instill good discipline and command respect. The school had an outstanding record for the numbers of its students achieving university places. By not going to TTC, they were not indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap that seems to be the case nowadays. And yes, we did have corporal punishment but it was used only as a last resort. That ultimate sanction prevented the more unruly boys from stepping too far over the line of bad behaviour.
For many decades now, British schools have had little choice when recruiting teachers. So far as I am aware, they have been required by law to recruit only teachers who have acquired certain documented qualifications, and yet this policy has not prevented us from having many failing schools over the years.
Suppose you are the chair of governors at a failing school. You want to dismiss those staff members who are letting the side down, but you know that you will then have to recruit people to replace them, and your choice will be limited. What if the replacement teachers also let the side down?
Maybe now is the time to consider the likelihood that legal restraints on teacher recruitment do more harm than good. Regardless of whether or not it is true that trainee teachers are indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap as is implied above, it is nevertheless true that legal restraints have not delivered world class schools.
I went to a grammar school in Birmingham in the 1960s. None of my teachers went to teachers training college. They either came from University with a first class degree in the subject they taught or they were ex officers from the armed forces who knew how to instill good discipline and command respect. The school had an outstanding record for the numbers of its students achieving university places. By not going to TTC, they were not indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap that seems to be the case nowadays. And yes, we did have corporal punishment but it was used only as a last resort. That ultimate sanction prevented the more unruly boys from stepping too far over the line of bad behaviour.
For many decades now, British schools have had little choice when recruiting teachers. So far as I am aware, they have been required by law to recruit only teachers who have acquired certain documented qualifications, and yet this policy has not prevented us from having many failing schools over the years.
Suppose you are the chair of governors at a failing school. You want to dismiss those staff members who are letting the side down, but you know that you will then have to recruit people to replace them, and your choice will be limited. What if the replacement teachers also let the side down?
Maybe now is the time to consider the likelihood that legal restraints on teacher recruitment do more harm than good. Regardless of whether or not it is true that trainee teachers are indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap as is implied above, it is nevertheless true that legal restraints have not delivered world class schools.
Thursday, 5 June 2014
When fat cats kill
Jaye Bloomfield is dead. She was killed as she crossed a road in Manchester in August 2013. She was killed by a speeding car driven by a black man called Michael Campbell.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Sunday, 1 June 2014
John Major is wrong about UKIP
UKIP's
stunning election victories last week will help David Cameron win
concessions from Europe, former Prime Minister John Major claimed today.
Sir
John said European leaders could no longer ignore rising euroscepticism
and return powers to Britain in the Prime Minister's renogotiation.
So reports The Daily Mail. The report is uncritical, but not the attached comments.
I am also puzzled that John Major regards support for UKIP as transient. While I have no problem with UKIP losing support, I wonder why the leaders of the European Union should no longer ignore rising euroscepticism if it is based on a one-off protest vote.
Of course this may prove to be far more than a one-off. In a few days from now the people of Newark have the power to send a clear message to the EU and to David Cameron by becoming the first ever constituency to return a UKIP MP.
Many people around the country are doubtless wishing that they too could have a by-election and a chance to return a UKIP MP. However we can all make our voice heard for change by joining a political party which supports Britain leaving the EU. Traditionally in this country the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have enjoyed far more members than any other party, but that could change. In fact membership of the Conservative Party has been in steep decline for some time now.
If just ten percent of people who voted UKIP in the recent elections were to join UKIP, then it would be easily the biggest political party in the UK. If just five percent of people who voted UKIP were to join UKIP, then it would either be the largest party or at least a close second.
I do not support UKIP, and I will not join them. Nevertheless I will admit that if people actually joined UKIP, then it might help David Cameron to realise that people are fed up with his leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)